Vannette: Suggested mantra: 'Me second'

Matthew Vannette

Published 9:28 pm, Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Our government and our society are complex. I think this is a safe statement to start with, and many reading it would agree. I am a physicist and the idea of complexity in a system has a very specific meaning for me. A complex system is one where each of the parts strongly interacts with many or all of the other parts. If we change one part, we will affect many other parts in ways that we may not understand or be able to predict.

For society this means analyzing any single issue in isolation will lead to a poor conclusion. We may find a good solution for the problem at hand, but the seemingly inevitable unintended consequences are a result of not thinking about the connections between the different issues. So, if we are to try to understand anything we must exercise discipline and be self-critical of our arguments.

This essay is the result of approximately eight months of thought that included internal and external debate. A recent event provides context, and I will be providing an argument for my conclusions. So as not to keep you in suspense, the essay will end with a suggested mantra for each of us: “Me second.”

On Feb. 27, U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar joined his fellow Republicans in voting en masse to table a resolution introduced by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ). This resolution would have required the president to submit his income tax returns to a closed-door House Ways and Means meeting for review of possible financial ties to Russia. At that point, the committee would have made a decision regarding the appropriateness of releasing the information to the general public.

Whereas Rep. Moolenaar has not issued a statement as to why he voted this way, the chair of the committee, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), cited a desire to protect the president’s civil liberties. It is always in good form to consider civil liberties when it comes to decisions made by members of the government. But there is a lot of information here, so I’d like to take a moment and unpack it, then think about what this decision may mean. (It’ll take some time to develop, so I beg your forgiveness and thank you for your tenacity.)

As time moves forward, an increasing number of the president’s Cabinet picks, surrogates and campaign leaders are found to have been in contact with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Speaking from a position of ignorance with respect to these matters, in principle I do not find this a bad thing. It certainly should not be considered abnormal for members of a potentially successful presidential campaign to be in contact with diplomats from abroad. After all, it takes time to develop personal trust.

What is troubling is the lack of recollection, number of denials or inadvertent omissions of such contact during confirmation hearings. Given the suspected role Russia may have played in attempting to influence the election, one might think an administration bent on “draining the swamp” would desire to be as transparent as possible. Covering up or withholding any information that may condemn or exonerate the president is not transparency. There is an argument that we have the right to know. If we claim that right, though, we must weigh it against the need to defend the civil liberties, particularly the right to privacy, of every citizen. Which is more important?

I suggest we consider the individuals. Our elected officials, just like our public school teachers, police officers, firefighters, members of the military, county clerks and more are public servants. We expect teachers to place their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion on hold while in the classroom. Should that not be the case, there would be a tacit endorsement of a particular religion by the government. This violates the First Amendment rights of the rest of us. With respect to the police, firefighters and military, we demand those individuals value our property, safety, families, lives and freedom above their own. Each time a soldier enters a combat zone, it is with the knowledge that an exit may not happen. Yet they do because protecting our free and open way of life and governance is viewed as more important than their own lives. In both of these cases we ask the pubic servant to consider his or her rights, safety or freedom as secondary to the rest of the population. Our demand is they say “Me second, you first.”

Now we come back to Rep. Moolenaar’s vote. His decision effectively places the president’s civil liberties above assuring the safety and security of the nation as a whole. The president, as a civil servant, is no different from the soldier in that he should think of his rights as secondary to the good of us all. The structure of the government is such that in the situation a president is unwilling to do this, Congress can force the issue. It seems the framers of the Constitution believed a large body of educated and thoughtful citizens would not permit the president to operate above both the spirit and letter of the law. Remember, the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the idea of the Revolution. How does an elected official defend his choice to place the rights of another elected official above those of his constituents? If Rep. Moolenaar reads this and has a justification, I’m excited to hear it. I think there is another way forward, though. A way that will prevent the need to justify questionable decisions.

We all need to be more deliberate in our choice of words and our actions. We must practice being aware of how our thoughts and actions impact those around us. In all that we do we should pause to ask “Am I acting to improve the world, or am I reacting to what is happening?” For our elected officials this translates to always considering if the vote, press release, speech or platform position helps those in power or if it is framed as “Me second.”